Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secondary schools of Rupandehi district

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of schools in Nepal#Rupandehi District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of secondary schools of Rupandehi district

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am struggling to see how this isn't a violation of WP:NOTDIR as it is literally a directory of every single secondary school in just one out of the 77 districts of Nepal and, if that isn't enough, I'm not seeing WP:LISTN being met either as there is a lack of significant, independent coverage of this particular grouping. I can't find anything to suggest that the secondary schools in this district are a distinctive enough phenomenon to require an exhaustive list of every single one of them. The list itself doesn't seem to meet any of the three purposes listed under WP:LISTPURP either. Similar deletions have taken place with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Misiones, Paraguay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Gombe State and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Venezuela, a list of schools in an entire country rather than just a small district. In my view, List of schools in Nepal is sufficient and we shouldn't be encouraging people to do directory lists for each of the 77 districts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Most of the schools do not have their own articles and no further context is provided on the list. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only blue link entries to List of schools in Nepal#Rupandehi District. Ajf773 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I am not persuaded by the nom's LISTN argument. I am no scholar of Rupandehi district matters. But simply on the face of it, the claim that secondary schooling in Rupandehi (or any comparable geographical area) has never received significant independent coverage is an extraordinary one that I have difficulty believing was intended seriously. The precedents cited in the nom strike me as more of a monument to AFD's perpetuation of systemic bias than anything else. That said, there's no obvious reason for this district alone to be split off from the rest of the List of schools in Nepal at this stage in its development, so merging it there seems fine. However, I see no indication that the Nepal list is intended to be restricted to bluelinks (indeed bluelinks seem to be a distinct minority). So if merged, I would advocate merging the entire list. -- Visviva (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:NOTDIR argument that I led with? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't quite understand it. None of the bullet points under NOTDIR would seem to apply (unless we're going to say that all bare lists are violations of bullet #1, which would be quite a shift). And in general, given encyclopedic subject matter, a comprehensive list is going to be of greater value to the project and the reader than a non-comprehensive one. -- Visviva (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also pertinent here. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Nobody asking for this article to be kept has provided the necessary independent sources to demonstrate this requires a stand-alone article. The content is verifiable through the government source but that alone isn't sufficient. We don't simply create an article just to mirror a drop-down list from a government website. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.